I believe it was Orcus, one of the roman deities of the underworldbleachigo10 said:So that means no more Twilight at the Comic Con? Thank you whichever god is responsible for this, now we must set up defenses to make sure they never come back.
I agree, but it just isn't feasible to incorporate so many decades of history and continuity into a 2 hour film. Changes have to be made in order to create a narrative that (mostly) stands on its own. I suppose one could say there are good and bad ways to be unfaithful to the source material. I don't envy the people needing to make those changes, but sometimes it seems so obvious that the changes are for the worse. (Did Thor really need (admittedly attractive and usually watchable) Natalie Portman to act as love interest?)008Zulu said:Comic fans wouldn't be so sour on comic book adaptations if the movies were faithful to the source material.
No sh*t. How anyone thought that Scott Pilgrim was actually going to be a mainstream hit is completely beyond me....Earnest Cavalli said:Key to the suddenly skittish studios' decision were the middling returns for Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. Though the $60 million film was a hit at Comic-Con, it only sold $32 million in tickets.
The key point for discussion that this studio exodus raises is that Hollywood may have finally realized that perhaps the whims of the geek masses dedicated enough to attend a comic book convention (or post on Internet forums, or mail tons of peanuts to executives [http://abcnews.go.com/Business/FunMoney/story?id=3214156&page=1]) may not directly correlate with the desires of the mainstream market.
Geeks may be an extremely vocal minority, it seems to suggest, but they are still a minority.
I would share your opinion if hardcore fans weren't such entitled, little cry babies.Nurb said:What do you expect? It's not really the fans' fault completely because a big studio wanting easy, safe money is taking something niche fans are passionate about and completely changing some things around or away from the source material.
I don't read comics, but I get where they're coming from
I've been to Comic Con for a few years now, and I saw this coming from a mile away. The studio was spending way too much money promoting a movie that would never have enough appeal to the mainstream crowd.sleeky01 said:"Movie Bob Chipman" laments that this is the case and doesn't seem to understand why that was the case. But what he is certain about is that it's our fault.Earnest Cavalli said:Key to the suddenly skittish studios' decision were the middling returns for Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. Though the $60 million film was a hit at Comic-Con, it only sold $32 million in tickets.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/3281-The-Numbers
And there in lay the problem Bob. You may be strongly motivated in your opinion, but what you can't seem to understand is that you are apparently in the minority and for all that is wrong with Hollywood, they seem to be coming to this realization as well.Earnest Cavalli said:The key point for discussion that this studio exodus raises is that Hollywood may have finally realized that perhaps the whims of the geek masses dedicated enough to attend a comic book convention (or post on Internet forums, or mail tons of peanuts to executives [http://abcnews.go.com/Business/FunMoney/story?id=3214156&page=1]) may not directly correlate with the desires of the mainstream market.
Geeks may be an extremely vocal minority, it seems to suggest, but they are still a minority.
Fast Five might disagree with you. Mediocre movie, laughing all the way to the bank.Jonny49 said:Then...don't make movies that are pieces of shit?
Surely that would be a good place to start.
No kidding. I used to go in the early part of the decade, and it was 'manageable'. The last time I went was 2007, and it was crazy overpacked. It wasn't even fun anymore, because the 'comics' aspected almost took a back seat to video games and Hollywood studios.laryri said:Does this mean Comic-Con is actually going to be about comics again? Thank god.
That's the problem, the crap movies are what are making money because they have a wider audience.The Hero Killer said:So movie makers are scared to show us their films because they are scared we will hate it and they wont be able to hype us out of our money? The real solution to this is to simply stop making crap movies.
Well, it maybe a good thing. Maybe. Comic-Con is suppose to be about comics anyway, but this does make me worry why they aren't going to come to Comic-Con. Either they don't want to risk some obsessive Fan trolling the flim just cause, or they know its just not that good. Either or, it seems pretty cowardly, and may piss off fans anyway.Snowy Rainbow said:Or if they just didn't suck so much, lol.008Zulu said:Comic fans wouldn't be so sour on comic book adaptations if the movies were faithful to the source material.
No matter how you please us, we will never be satisfied! No matter what you do, we will dislike it!Imp Emissary said:Well, it maybe a good thing. Maybe. Comic-Con is suppose to be about comics anyway, but this does make me worry why they aren't going to come to Comic-Con. Either they don't want to risk some obsessive Fan trolling the flim just cause, or they know its just not that good. Either or, it seems pretty cowardly, and may piss off fans anyway.Snowy Rainbow said:Or if they just didn't suck so much, lol.008Zulu said:Comic fans wouldn't be so sour on comic book adaptations if the movies were faithful to the source material.
The problem is crap painted gold sells really well to a less self-educated majority, or a blinded minority.Jonny49 said:Then...don't make movies that are pieces of shit?
Surely that would be a good place to start.
Not even if they were to give you all a....."Happy ending".Snowy Rainbow said:No matter how you please us, we will never be satisfied! No matter what you do, we will dislike it!Imp Emissary said:Well, it maybe a good thing. Maybe. Comic-Con is suppose to be about comics anyway, but this does make me worry why they aren't going to come to Comic-Con. Either they don't want to risk some obsessive Fan trolling the flim just cause, or they know its just not that good. Either or, it seems pretty cowardly, and may piss off fans anyway.Snowy Rainbow said:Or if they just didn't suck so much, lol.008Zulu said:Comic fans wouldn't be so sour on comic book adaptations if the movies were faithful to the source material.
Even then! They'd screw it up and do it all wrong somehow.Imp Emissary said:Not even if they were to give you all a....."Happy ending".Snowy Rainbow said:No matter how you please us, we will never be satisfied! No matter what you do, we will dislike it!Imp Emissary said:Well, it maybe a good thing. Maybe. Comic-Con is suppose to be about comics anyway, but this does make me worry why they aren't going to come to Comic-Con. Either they don't want to risk some obsessive Fan trolling the flim just cause, or they know its just not that good. Either or, it seems pretty cowardly, and may piss off fans anyway.Snowy Rainbow said:Or if they just didn't suck so much, lol.008Zulu said:Comic fans wouldn't be so sour on comic book adaptations if the movies were faithful to the source material.![]()